[PATCH 0/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[PATCH 0/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Isaac Scott]

This patch corrects the bit number that represents the soft power down
bit of the AD5398. This was overlooked during testing as in my use case,
the regulator was enabled and disabled via multiple methods, such as
using the power down pin on the chip itself through a different driver.

I have tested this on v6.13, and the bit number selected here accurately
reflects what is listed in the datasheet for the AD5398.

Isaac Scott (1):
  regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

 drivers/regulator/ad5398.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Isaac Scott]

The datasheet for the AD5398 regulator indicates that the Soft power
down bit is bit 15, not 16 as represented in the driver. Correct this to
ensure the functionality is implemented correctly.

Signed-off-by: Isaac Scott <isaac.scott@ideasonboard.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/ad5398.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/ad5398.c b/drivers/regulator/ad5398.c
index 0274f41d0233..eb2a666a45cb 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/ad5398.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/ad5398.c
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 #include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
 #include <linux/regulator/of_regulator.h>
 
-#define AD5398_SW_POWER_DOWN	BIT(16)
+#define AD5398_SW_POWER_DOWN	BIT(15)
 
 struct ad5398_chip_info {
 	struct i2c_client *client;
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH 0/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 665 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 12:24:58PM +0000, Isaac Scott wrote:
> This patch corrects the bit number that represents the soft power down
> bit of the AD5398. This was overlooked during testing as in my use case,
> the regulator was enabled and disabled via multiple methods, such as
> using the power down pin on the chip itself through a different driver.

Please don't send cover letters for single patches, if there is anything
that needs saying put it in the changelog of the patch or after the ---
if it's administrative stuff.  This reduces mail volume and ensures that 
any important information is recorded in the changelog rather than being
lost. 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 327 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 12:24:59PM +0000, Isaac Scott wrote:
> The datasheet for the AD5398 regulator indicates that the Soft power
> down bit is bit 15, not 16 as represented in the driver. Correct this to
> ensure the functionality is implemented correctly.

This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Isaac Scott]

Hi Mark,

On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 12:28 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 12:24:59PM +0000, Isaac Scott wrote:
> > The datasheet for the AD5398 regulator indicates that the Soft
> > power
> > down bit is bit 15, not 16 as represented in the driver. Correct
> > this to
> > ensure the functionality is implemented correctly.
> 
> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.

I have checked, and it applies on top of linux-next next-20250206,
which includes my previous patch you have already applied:

[1/3] regulator: ad5398: change enable bit name to improve readibility
      commit: 19d022d67d7353f0e6e9ba255435d3de93862ac4
[3/3] regulator: ad5398: Add device tree support
      commit: 5a6a461079decea452fdcae955bccecf92e07e97

Have I applied it to the wrong branch?

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Isaac

Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 741 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 12:45:28PM +0000, Isaac Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 12:28 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.

> I have checked, and it applies on top of linux-next next-20250206,
> which includes my previous patch you have already applied:

> [1/3] regulator: ad5398: change enable bit name to improve readibility
>       commit: 19d022d67d7353f0e6e9ba255435d3de93862ac4
> [3/3] regulator: ad5398: Add device tree support
>       commit: 5a6a461079decea452fdcae955bccecf92e07e97

> Have I applied it to the wrong branch?

You didn't include a Fixes tag or otherwise mention that this was a fix
for a recent change so I was applying this as a fix for Linus' tree.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Isaac Scott]

Hi Mark,

On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 12:58 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 12:45:28PM +0000, Isaac Scott wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 12:28 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.
> 
> > I have checked, and it applies on top of linux-next next-20250206,
> > which includes my previous patch you have already applied:
> 
> > [1/3] regulator: ad5398: change enable bit name to improve
> > readibility
> >       commit: 19d022d67d7353f0e6e9ba255435d3de93862ac4
> > [3/3] regulator: ad5398: Add device tree support
> >       commit: 5a6a461079decea452fdcae955bccecf92e07e97
> 
> > Have I applied it to the wrong branch?
> 
> You didn't include a Fixes tag or otherwise mention that this was a
> fix
> for a recent change so I was applying this as a fix for Linus' tree.

To be clear, would you like me to resend the patch with the fixes tag?

Best wishes,

Isaac

Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:28:15PM +0000, Isaac Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 12:58 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > You didn't include a Fixes tag or otherwise mention that this was a
> > fix
> > for a recent change so I was applying this as a fix for Linus' tree.

> To be clear, would you like me to resend the patch with the fixes tag?

Yes, like the message said please resend.  Though isn't this the same as
the fix that Dheeraj already sent:

   https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250206103153.59114-1-dheeraj.linuxdev@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Isaac Scott]

On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 13:44 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:28:15PM +0000, Isaac Scott wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 12:58 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > You didn't include a Fixes tag or otherwise mention that this was
> > > a
> > > fix
> > > for a recent change so I was applying this as a fix for Linus'
> > > tree.
> 
> > To be clear, would you like me to resend the patch with the fixes
> > tag?
> 
> Yes, like the message said please resend.  Though isn't this the same
> as
> the fix that Dheeraj already sent:
> 

Yes, we have both fixed the same thing! Although I wasn't CC'd so I
didn't know they fixed my patch.

Best wishes,
Isaac
>   
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250206103153.59114-1-dheeraj.linuxdev@gmail.com

Re: [PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 434 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:57:14PM +0000, Isaac Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-02-06 at 13:44 +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Yes, like the message said please resend.  Though isn't this the same
> > as
> > the fix that Dheeraj already sent:

> Yes, we have both fixed the same thing! Although I wasn't CC'd so I
> didn't know they fixed my patch.

Yeah, that wasn't ideal.  In any case it's fixed now which is the main
thing.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[PATCH 1/1] regulator: ad5398: Correct the SW_POWER_DOWN bit number

[Isaac Scott]

The datasheet for the AD5398 regulator indicates that the Soft power
down bit is bit 15, not 16 as represented in the driver. Correct this to
ensure the functionality is implemented correctly.

Signed-off-by: Isaac Scott <isaac.scott@ideasonboard.com>
---
 drivers/regulator/ad5398.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/ad5398.c b/drivers/regulator/ad5398.c
index 0274f41d0233..eb2a666a45cb 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/ad5398.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/ad5398.c
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 #include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
 #include <linux/regulator/of_regulator.h>
 
-#define AD5398_SW_POWER_DOWN	BIT(16)
+#define AD5398_SW_POWER_DOWN	BIT(15)
 
 struct ad5398_chip_info {
 	struct i2c_client *client;
-- 
2.43.0